Project Description

Membership Program – Planning Tools

We explored how younger members want help managing their money—and where current financial tools fall short. The challenge wasn’t lack of information, it was trust, clarity, and knowing what to do next.

The goal: identify what actually drives adoption of financial planning tools for people in their mid‑20s to mid‑30s, and what a compelling, member‑friendly solution should look like.

This analysis was part of a broader research initiative focused on evolving our membership program. The work aimed to identify opportunities to strengthen our offerings and uncover new ways to deliver meaningful, everyday value to our members.

Research

We conducted qualitative research with 20 participants ages 24–36, all of whom were actively thinking about major financial decisions like buying a home, paying down debt, or planning for retirement.

Participants reviewed a mix of approaches, including:

  • Article-based education (Better Money Habits)
  • Guided, interactive platforms (Penny Finance)
  • Chat-based AI and coaching tools (Kiro)
  • Traditional financial advisory services

We asked participants to compare these experiences, identify what felt useful (or not), and explain when they’d trust AI versus a human.

Key Findings

AI is preferred—but only for the right jobs

Chat-based AI experiences were the most popular overall because they’re:

  • Personalized
  • Easy to ask follow‑up questions
  • Available in the moment

That said, AI fell short for nuanced, high‑stakes decisions. Participants consistently wanted human validation for complex planning and sensitive topics.

Interactivity beats information

People didn’t want more content—they wanted guidance.

  • Bite‑sized, step‑by‑step tools were easier to digest than long articles or dense chat responses
  • Visuals, calculators, and examples built confidence
  • Long explanations without a clear next step felt overwhelming

Traditional financial advisors were still seen as the “gold standard,” but:

  • High fees
  • Perceived bias
  • “Wealth management” language

…pushed many participants away. Transparency, plain language, and clear reasoning mattered more than prestige.

What people actually want from a planning tool

Across tools and formats, the strongest signals were consistent:

  • Clear recommendations with explanations
  • The ability to tweak inputs and instantly see impact
  • Continuity over time (tools that remember prior context)
  • Optional, on‑demand human support
  • Affordable, straightforward pricing

Conclusion

The research pointed to a clear opportunity: a hybrid financial planning experience that combines the speed and personalization of AI with human support when it counts.

The ideal solution:

  • Feels approachable and non‑intimidating
  • Offers quick, personalized advice with clear next steps
  • Supports self‑paced, asynchronous use
  • Uses AI for calculations and scenarios, not blind decision‑making
  • Builds trust through transparency, not promises

This case study reinforced that good financial experiences aren’t about smarter algorithms—they’re about reducing stress, building confidence, and helping people act.

For me, this work highlights the importance of designing decision support, not just information delivery. When tools respect people’s emotions, context, and trust boundaries, adoption follows.